Article3 Biotech2025
Phytotherapeutic evaluation of rosehip seed and olive oils on wound healing: evidence from L929 cell culture and in vivo VEGF/TGF-β analysis.
Article in 3 Biotech, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the wound healing efficacy of rosehip seed oil and olive oil using both in vitro and in vivo models. The novelty of this work lies in the comparative investigation of these two natural oils with documented antioxidant profiles, focusing on their regenerative capacity. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis revealed linoleic acid (45.46%) as the major component of rosehip seed oil and oleic acid (78.16%) as dominant in olive oil. In vitro 3- (4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl) -2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assays on L929 fibroblasts confirmed the nontoxic nature of both oils at low concentrations. In vitro scratch assays showed that the wound closure rate increased from 85.22% in the control group to 96.49% with 0.1% rosehip seed oil and 92.67% with 0.01% olive oil. The combination of oils achieved a 91.72% closure rate. In vivo, oils were topically applied to rat excisional wounds for 10 days. The negative control group had a 52.97% healing rate, while rosehip seed oil treatment improved it to 69.13%, when compared with 57.13% with olive oil and 60.43% with the oil mixture. Histopathological analysis showed significant epithelial tissue regeneration with rosehip seed oil. This group also demonstrated the highest vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) expression levels, greater total antioxidant capacity, and the most effective oxidative stress reduction. These results suggest that rosehip seed oil may be a potent natural agent for promoting wound repair, likely due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. However, further studies involving additional cell lines, prolonged treatment durations, and clinical validation are warranted to confirm its therapeutic potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.